GULL BHAT AND OTHERS v. AZIZ BHAT (DECEASED) THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS
RP/36/2025 · 2025-09-15
Rahul Bharti
Review Petitionbody2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 7108 (JK) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 7108 (JK) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Serial No. 01 REGULAR CAUSE LIST
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR RP 36/2025 In CR 3/2016] CM(4373/2025 Gull Bhat And Others. …Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Mir Umar, Advocate. Vs. Aziz Bhat. ...Respondent(s) Through: Mr. I. A. Parray, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAHUL BHARTI, JUDGE.
ORDER 15.09.2025
01. This Court by virtue of an order dated 05.04.2025, came to dismiss two applications CM No. 8303/2024 and CM No. 8304/2024 thereby seeking condonation of delay and restoration of application being CM No. 5144/2019.
02. While dismissing said two applications (CM No. 8303/2024 and CM No. 8304/2024) , this Court came to observe that said two applications are seriously flawed and misconceived which at the very
first instance ought not have been filed by the applicants and their counsel given the fact that the sole non-applicant (Aziz Bhat) named in said two applications, was a deceased person having already expired on 03.03.2012 which fact was very well known to the applicants at the time of filing of said two applications in 2024, but still said applications were filed by reference to a deceased person as non- applicant and that was criminal wasting of time of this Court which resulted in imposition of costs of Rs. 40,000/- upon the applicants.
03. The costs of Rs. 40,000/- is said to have been recovered from the applicants who are now coming forward seeking review of order dated
05.04.2025.
04. There is no ground made out for review of the
order dated 05.04.2025 given the fact that what is being now done in the present review petition by mentioning Aziz Bhat as deceased and being represented through his legal representatives named in the review petition, the same was supposed to have been done at the time of filing of the two applications i.e. CM No. 8303/2024 and CM No.
8304/2024 but was not deliberately done by the applicants as well as their counsel despite the knowledge. Therefore, this review petition is meritless and hence dismissed in limine.
(RAHUL BHARTI)
JUDGE
SRINAGAR: 15.09.2025
“HAMID”